Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II)

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Michael Graff <explorer(at)flame(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II)
Date: 2003-04-13 23:39:58
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0304140103520.6904-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Michael Graff writes:

> One other poster suggested they should be two data types, which I half
> agree with.  There are advantages of being able to use IPv4 or IPv6
> addresses in the same column, so I wouldn't have to have two tables
> for host <-> address mappings, for instance.  I'm undecided on which
> is better, but so far I've used the inet with ipv4 and 6 data type
> once and found them useful under one data type.

Perhaps we can make "inet" take both and then define domains "inet4" and
"inet6" over it that only take one kind.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net


In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-04-14 01:50:42
Subject: Re: Modern C++ Interface
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-04-13 22:56:29
Subject: Re: Reserved Key Words, Using "path" as a table name

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group